There have been quite a few responses to my blog, 'Thinking Civil Society with reason'. Many comments were made in Face book and Twitter, where I post my blogs regularly, and some had even taken the trouble of personally emailing me with their thoughts. This was a pleasant surprise for me as the blog was broadly discursive. It would be much appreciated if future comments were made at the blog site, in the specified area below each post.
My intention was not to be patronising and provide an academic deliberation on the evolution of civil society and how it operates in the Indian context, but to come up with a broad idea within which the concept of civil society, as it is seen today, is situated.
The objective of such an analysis was to highlight the fact that the acrimony that is overshadowing the debate over the role of the civil society in India is actually weakening the phenomenon from within. The reason behind such an apprehension is the fact that such acrimony is not guided by intellectual necessity and is merely a personal one.
The logic behind such an observation stems from the fact that all the components of the acrimony have reached their pre-eminence because of the broader (global) discourse of the civil society being situated to replace the state in some areas of operation.
I do not think that the civil society movement is yet to get concrete shape in India. Although in its present context, the pre-eminence was a western influence but with the course of time it has developed organically cutting across the rural-urban divide. However, I do accept that at a very conceptual stage civil society was an urban phenomenon.
The mention of a weak executive is also not acceptable; since my understanding is that the Indian executive is very monolithic and hence is resistant to any structural changes at least in the power relations within the society.
Finally, I would like to thank everybody who took the time to read my blog and contributed to the debate. It is very encouraging and would definitely stimulate any future thinking.
Tuesday
Thinking Civil Society with reason
India is witnessing a debate on the role of civil society in what is being termed by many as the country’s “fight against corruption”. More than anything else, Anna Hazare’s movement has succeeded in bringing back the issue of corruption in India, especially at the top, as a national talking point. I have no qualms in admitting that the public reaction to the movement launched by the 74-year old activist came as a pleasant surprise to me. My understanding was that a large section of the Indians have started to live with corruption, accepting it as a fact of life. This emanated from my perception that now for a large number of Indians, ‘end justifies the means’. I consider this an outcome of ‘competitive capitalism’ and one could link it with ‘neo-liberalism’ – the dominant politico-economic discourse influencing much of the Indian society.
‘Competitive Capitalism ’ and its relationship to neo-liberalism is not the contention of this post. However, I thought it would be useful to explain the backdrop before linking it to the reasons behind the advent of the civil society, which is broadly a global phenomenon. (By 'competitive capitalism' I mean capitalism as a socio-political and economic doctrine which promotes competition in each and every sphere of human life.)
The possible relationship between Arvind Kejriwal, a guiding force behind Hazare’s movement, and the Ford Foundation, has raised a hue and cry in India, so much so that Arundhati Roy, who can very well be described as part of the civil society, where Kejriwal also belongs, went to the extent of drawing a conclusion that ‘foreign money’ ‘is being used to drum up popular support in favour of the so called drive against corruption in the country'. An influential English news weekly has also carried stories on the subject, although I am not totally sure about the exact nature of such a relationship, if any.
Even if such a relationship exists, nobody would disagree that corruption is a vice and needs to be stamped out. It has been part of the post-independent Indian society for the past over six decades and nothing much has changed, despite calls to combat it from various quarters and promises made by successive governments to take the issue head on. I see no problem in using foreign funds to stamp out corruption as part of the ‘good governance agenda’. After all, India has now grown much bigger and its sovereign influence transcends much beyond the national boundaries. Secondly, notwithstanding the background of organisations like the Ford Foundation (they or their parent organisations are exploitative on the one hand and philanthropic on the other), resources and expertise at their disposal have been used in many developing countries to ensure ‘democratic governance’ and hence it is not unique of sorts.
Civil society, being the intermediary between an individual and the state, has been part of the broad intellectual discourse for a very long time. Even before western modernity, civil society existed. One can be tempted to draw an analogy between the advisors of the kings and emperors of ancient and medieval India as being representatives of what we now call the ‘civil society’. Can’t we consider the Navaratna in Akbar’s court, including people like Birbal, as being the intermediaries between the state and the individual? However, it took a different form in the bourgeoisie society, in the aftermath of the western modernity and their role got diminished during the post world war period with the advent of statism, when nation-states had an overarching role in almost every sphere of human life.
With the rise of neo-liberalism, the influence of the nation states has been much diminished both in terms of reach and the roles they performed during much of the second half of the last century. Dominance of the private sector and attaching a monetised value to each and every function the state had performed for decades became a guiding principle of the neo-liberals, till such time when thinkers like Joseph Stiglitz realised that the private sector could not fully make up for the state. It was possibly during the later part of the last century that the World Bank (note Stiglitz was the Chief Economist of the World Bank during the period 1997 to 2000) situated the civil society in the mainstream discourse as an alternative to carry out some roles which were earlier done by the state.
I think it is extremely important to see and analyse the role of the civil society in the backdrop of its re-emergence in the mainstream discourse as an alternative to the state, not in its entirety as a fundamental institution in society but in a functional form holding the service providers to account. Whether the civil society can match up to the state is a different debate altogether but it would be naïve if one overlooks the pretext within which neo-liberalism situates the civil society. The pre-eminence of organisations like the Ford Foundation or civil society representatives like Kejriwal and Roy and their fight against corruption or movement in support of the Right to Information (RTI) are outcomes emanating from such an outlook.(Who would have imagined civil society performing such a role when the state had an overarching presence.) Seeing what Kejriwal and the Ford Foundation are doing as something out of the blue implies missing out the larger context within which civil society is situated in the wider discourse of neo-liberalism. Such a myopic vision could only lead to acrimony, hindering any healthy debate on working out the parameters within which the civil society could function in the Indian society.
*Much of my thinking on Civil Society is influenced by Subir Sinha of the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in London.
‘Competitive Capitalism ’ and its relationship to neo-liberalism is not the contention of this post. However, I thought it would be useful to explain the backdrop before linking it to the reasons behind the advent of the civil society, which is broadly a global phenomenon. (By 'competitive capitalism' I mean capitalism as a socio-political and economic doctrine which promotes competition in each and every sphere of human life.)
The possible relationship between Arvind Kejriwal, a guiding force behind Hazare’s movement, and the Ford Foundation, has raised a hue and cry in India, so much so that Arundhati Roy, who can very well be described as part of the civil society, where Kejriwal also belongs, went to the extent of drawing a conclusion that ‘foreign money’ ‘is being used to drum up popular support in favour of the so called drive against corruption in the country'. An influential English news weekly has also carried stories on the subject, although I am not totally sure about the exact nature of such a relationship, if any.
Even if such a relationship exists, nobody would disagree that corruption is a vice and needs to be stamped out. It has been part of the post-independent Indian society for the past over six decades and nothing much has changed, despite calls to combat it from various quarters and promises made by successive governments to take the issue head on. I see no problem in using foreign funds to stamp out corruption as part of the ‘good governance agenda’. After all, India has now grown much bigger and its sovereign influence transcends much beyond the national boundaries. Secondly, notwithstanding the background of organisations like the Ford Foundation (they or their parent organisations are exploitative on the one hand and philanthropic on the other), resources and expertise at their disposal have been used in many developing countries to ensure ‘democratic governance’ and hence it is not unique of sorts.
Civil society, being the intermediary between an individual and the state, has been part of the broad intellectual discourse for a very long time. Even before western modernity, civil society existed. One can be tempted to draw an analogy between the advisors of the kings and emperors of ancient and medieval India as being representatives of what we now call the ‘civil society’. Can’t we consider the Navaratna in Akbar’s court, including people like Birbal, as being the intermediaries between the state and the individual? However, it took a different form in the bourgeoisie society, in the aftermath of the western modernity and their role got diminished during the post world war period with the advent of statism, when nation-states had an overarching role in almost every sphere of human life.
With the rise of neo-liberalism, the influence of the nation states has been much diminished both in terms of reach and the roles they performed during much of the second half of the last century. Dominance of the private sector and attaching a monetised value to each and every function the state had performed for decades became a guiding principle of the neo-liberals, till such time when thinkers like Joseph Stiglitz realised that the private sector could not fully make up for the state. It was possibly during the later part of the last century that the World Bank (note Stiglitz was the Chief Economist of the World Bank during the period 1997 to 2000) situated the civil society in the mainstream discourse as an alternative to carry out some roles which were earlier done by the state.
I think it is extremely important to see and analyse the role of the civil society in the backdrop of its re-emergence in the mainstream discourse as an alternative to the state, not in its entirety as a fundamental institution in society but in a functional form holding the service providers to account. Whether the civil society can match up to the state is a different debate altogether but it would be naïve if one overlooks the pretext within which neo-liberalism situates the civil society. The pre-eminence of organisations like the Ford Foundation or civil society representatives like Kejriwal and Roy and their fight against corruption or movement in support of the Right to Information (RTI) are outcomes emanating from such an outlook.(Who would have imagined civil society performing such a role when the state had an overarching presence.) Seeing what Kejriwal and the Ford Foundation are doing as something out of the blue implies missing out the larger context within which civil society is situated in the wider discourse of neo-liberalism. Such a myopic vision could only lead to acrimony, hindering any healthy debate on working out the parameters within which the civil society could function in the Indian society.
*Much of my thinking on Civil Society is influenced by Subir Sinha of the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in London.
Friday
Great men think alike
The West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Bandyopadhyay may be ‘ridiculed’ for her plans to turn Kolkata, the place where I belong, to London, the city where I have been living for over a decade now, but her way of thinking has now found a taker in no less than the US President Barack Obama. Apart from being ‘harbingers of change’ in their own constituencies, Bandyopadhyay’s economic policy of going on a spending spree without much concern for the health of the exchequer has now evinced interest for the Democrat President, who despite lot of hope and aspiration, is struggling to ensure a second term in office.
The rare Obama speech, delivered before the US Congress (on Thursday US Time, kept me awake till the early hours and a drowsy journey to work this morning lured me to frame a queer comparison between the two, which might be unfamiliar for any average person living outside West Bengal or without any clear knowledge about the state Chief Minister.
The speech that Obama delivered last night lacked much in detail, but the underlying message was crystal clear, ‘spend and get out of the economic mess' that the US and much of the western world is in. While there is a deliberate attempt to practice austerity (and carry out cuts) in the changed environment in Europe, yet Obama has taken recourse to the Keynesian way of creating demand through government spending. The impact of the stimulus packages, which the US and many other governments around the world announced after the demise of the Lehman Brothers, amidst the fear of a double dip recession, are debatable (although that was probably more of a historical necessity) but that did not deter President Obama from treading a path, which any conservative would find dangerous and self-defeating.
However, this is not the only manifestation of the desperation that Obama is facing in the run up to the presidential polls. In his much animated speech Thursday night, he couldn’t even resist the temptation of mentioning that the next round of elections were actually round the corner. “The next (presidential) election is 14 months away but the American people have no patience to wait that long”, quipped Obama. See the similarity in the rhetoric that Bandyopadhyay uses justifying her hasty approach: “I want move quickly and ready to learn from mistakes rather than do nothing”. Like Obama, Bandyopadhyay also wants to ensure jobs for the frontline staff, the teachers, nurses etc. build infrastructure projects (Obama calls for modernising airports and Bandyopadhyay wants to build new roads, hospitals etc.), plug government wastage and tax those who can afford to pay more (Obama mentions about Warren Buffett paying less tax than even his secretary).
Apart from the economic elements, there is also a shrewd political side to the whole saga. Despite being a Democrat, Obama has called for tax cuts which is very difficult for the Republicans to ignore and if they, because of their majority in the House of Representatives, try to block the President’s plan then there is a fear that the opposition would expose themselves to the American people (at least that is what the strategists in the White House are betting on.) On a similar vein, Bandyopadhyay can also combat any resistance to her plans, either from her opposition, including the CPI-M, or from her alliance partner the Congress, as being anti-development. At least the strategists from both sides are possibly thinking that the whole saga puts them in a virtual win-win situation.
However, the objective of this post is not to draw similarities between two personality cults operating in different circumstances or to compare Bandyopadhyay with Obama but to highlight what one of the greatest and influential economists of all times John Maynard Keynes, despite being a votary of the free market, observed during his time, that “even the government could fill in the shoes of business by investing in public works and hiring the unemployed”.
In an age when Keynesianism, as an economic doctrine, is considered to be exhausted and when the state plays only a secondary role to the private sector, Keynes might turn in his grave and say, “one day I saved Capitalism from Communist onslaughts and today I am back to save the whole world”.
Who knows?
The rare Obama speech, delivered before the US Congress (on Thursday US Time, kept me awake till the early hours and a drowsy journey to work this morning lured me to frame a queer comparison between the two, which might be unfamiliar for any average person living outside West Bengal or without any clear knowledge about the state Chief Minister.
The speech that Obama delivered last night lacked much in detail, but the underlying message was crystal clear, ‘spend and get out of the economic mess' that the US and much of the western world is in. While there is a deliberate attempt to practice austerity (and carry out cuts) in the changed environment in Europe, yet Obama has taken recourse to the Keynesian way of creating demand through government spending. The impact of the stimulus packages, which the US and many other governments around the world announced after the demise of the Lehman Brothers, amidst the fear of a double dip recession, are debatable (although that was probably more of a historical necessity) but that did not deter President Obama from treading a path, which any conservative would find dangerous and self-defeating.
However, this is not the only manifestation of the desperation that Obama is facing in the run up to the presidential polls. In his much animated speech Thursday night, he couldn’t even resist the temptation of mentioning that the next round of elections were actually round the corner. “The next (presidential) election is 14 months away but the American people have no patience to wait that long”, quipped Obama. See the similarity in the rhetoric that Bandyopadhyay uses justifying her hasty approach: “I want move quickly and ready to learn from mistakes rather than do nothing”. Like Obama, Bandyopadhyay also wants to ensure jobs for the frontline staff, the teachers, nurses etc. build infrastructure projects (Obama calls for modernising airports and Bandyopadhyay wants to build new roads, hospitals etc.), plug government wastage and tax those who can afford to pay more (Obama mentions about Warren Buffett paying less tax than even his secretary).
Apart from the economic elements, there is also a shrewd political side to the whole saga. Despite being a Democrat, Obama has called for tax cuts which is very difficult for the Republicans to ignore and if they, because of their majority in the House of Representatives, try to block the President’s plan then there is a fear that the opposition would expose themselves to the American people (at least that is what the strategists in the White House are betting on.) On a similar vein, Bandyopadhyay can also combat any resistance to her plans, either from her opposition, including the CPI-M, or from her alliance partner the Congress, as being anti-development. At least the strategists from both sides are possibly thinking that the whole saga puts them in a virtual win-win situation.
However, the objective of this post is not to draw similarities between two personality cults operating in different circumstances or to compare Bandyopadhyay with Obama but to highlight what one of the greatest and influential economists of all times John Maynard Keynes, despite being a votary of the free market, observed during his time, that “even the government could fill in the shoes of business by investing in public works and hiring the unemployed”.
In an age when Keynesianism, as an economic doctrine, is considered to be exhausted and when the state plays only a secondary role to the private sector, Keynes might turn in his grave and say, “one day I saved Capitalism from Communist onslaughts and today I am back to save the whole world”.
Who knows?
Can Keynes save Obama's job
From my notes while listening to President Barrack Obama's rare but desperate address to the joint session of the US Congress.
Obama takes resort to Keynesiansim but is it enough to save his job for another term. Keynes once claimed to have saved Capitalism from Communist onslought but will the economist in his grave be able to save the presidency of a Democrat, who so far gave market an upper hand over government. Critics of Keynesianism say that it has now exhausted as an economic philosophy with the weakening of the nation state. Will Obama's efforts help the intuitive economist to make a come back as a forebearer of an economic doctrine?
China's surplus pays for US budget deficits. Despite what Obama says to persuade his vote bank, there is no way the US will take over China as the world's manufacturing hub. Following Giovanni Arrighi one can now very well say Adam Smith has reached Beijing and the days of the American Empire is finally over.
It has been a long night as the world watched another typical Obama speech in a rare address to the joint session of the US Congress. Despite the Obama type rhetoric the speech was weak on details. President Obama sounded in a hurry without much groundwork.
'Jobs Act' spells out more jobs for the jobless Americans but nobody knows who will foot the bill in a country which is neck deep in deficit. Obama's plans would make China economically stronger and US would seem like a power of the past.
Huge budget deficit an enormous problem for Obama on the economic front. However, a much bigger problem lies in the dominant political economy analysis of the current state of the world. Obama takes resort to Keynesianism to save his presideny but would the strategy work when the concept of 'nation state' has significantly weakened.
A quick ponter to what I tried to explain so far comes from a BBC interview with Arjuna Mahendran of the HSBC Private Bank,'' no reason for the bourses to be enthused from Obama speech''. Possibly the Asian bourses would slip a few points as they open trading on Friday
Obama takes resort to Keynesiansim but is it enough to save his job for another term. Keynes once claimed to have saved Capitalism from Communist onslought but will the economist in his grave be able to save the presidency of a Democrat, who so far gave market an upper hand over government. Critics of Keynesianism say that it has now exhausted as an economic philosophy with the weakening of the nation state. Will Obama's efforts help the intuitive economist to make a come back as a forebearer of an economic doctrine?
China's surplus pays for US budget deficits. Despite what Obama says to persuade his vote bank, there is no way the US will take over China as the world's manufacturing hub. Following Giovanni Arrighi one can now very well say Adam Smith has reached Beijing and the days of the American Empire is finally over.
It has been a long night as the world watched another typical Obama speech in a rare address to the joint session of the US Congress. Despite the Obama type rhetoric the speech was weak on details. President Obama sounded in a hurry without much groundwork.
'Jobs Act' spells out more jobs for the jobless Americans but nobody knows who will foot the bill in a country which is neck deep in deficit. Obama's plans would make China economically stronger and US would seem like a power of the past.
Huge budget deficit an enormous problem for Obama on the economic front. However, a much bigger problem lies in the dominant political economy analysis of the current state of the world. Obama takes resort to Keynesianism to save his presideny but would the strategy work when the concept of 'nation state' has significantly weakened.
A quick ponter to what I tried to explain so far comes from a BBC interview with Arjuna Mahendran of the HSBC Private Bank,'' no reason for the bourses to be enthused from Obama speech''. Possibly the Asian bourses would slip a few points as they open trading on Friday
Wednesday
People's surge needed to fight security failure
All day long on Wednesday, the blast near the High Court premises in New Delhi has been the highlight of the international media. In between meetings, my ringing BlackBerry updated every miniscule details of the fact that a very important Indian establishment was again under attack. Such attacks has become so frequent these days that it becomes difficult to maintain a proper chronology of events, so much so that during the previous blast at Mumbai my cousin, although a resident of the commercial capital of India, was not aware of such an incident till I called him up from London.
Terror attacks are not infrequent in India and the danger is that everyone, from the security apparatus to the administration to the ordinary people, gets used to it. They take it as a destiny with the politicians making a mockery of themselves by indulging in childlike blame games. What the BJP is saying today was the usual retort of the Congress when they were out of the treasury benches in parliament. It is a pity that politicians fight for political gains while ordinary people suffer. After every attack, as grisly pictures fill the prime time slots of all the Indian television channels, melancholy grips the heart for the lost lives; someone somewhere must have lost their near and dear ones.
One of Mark Tully’s books is titled: ‘No full stops in India''. Although written in a different context it seems that actually there is no full stop of terror and violence in a country which is known and adored worldwide for love, brotherhood, non violence and peace. Reading about the ghastly blasts and seeing the bloody pictures, I often wonder what is the justification of having such a robust security apparatus if it is brought down to its knees at regular intervals. I was in Delhi recently and had to undergo six layers of security checks within a period of two hours, despite being in the airport lounge all the time. Each time the khaki-clad security men searched my bags and used a metal detector on my body, I was filled with anguish. I heard a disgruntled fellow passenger telling to a security man, what I wanted to communicate. ''You can’t do anything to the terrorists and are unnecessarily harassing us’’, quipped the fellow passenger at the swanky Terminal 3 of the Delhi airport.
Like any other country, the security apparatus in India is also very insensitive and arrogant. Despite all the discomfort and uneasiness of the passengers, the stone faced security men are in no mood to comply with the minimum decorum of civilities. They behave as if they are the masters and we the ordinary people their subjects. In the context of what has happened today at Delhi, the readers might be aghast with my way of seeing things. However, it should be noted that an insensitive attitude on the part of the security apparatus only makes things worse and any ordinary citizen fails to understand the moral necessity of complying with the security arrangements.
Given the intensity of the attacks on India in recent times and the potent of instability and anger worldwide for various reasons, it is a foregone conclusion that terrorism, violence and bloodshed cannot be controlled only by the security mechanism. What is necessary is the ‘people’s surge’ or as celebrated BBC presenter Nik Gowing refers to in a different context as the ‘civilian surge’, where the responsibility of the necessary security level would be bestowed on the people. It would put the people under an ethico-moral obligation to ensure physical security for the society at large. Such a social arrangement would possibly transcend beyond physical security and ensure greater stability within the wider societal space.
Terror attacks are not infrequent in India and the danger is that everyone, from the security apparatus to the administration to the ordinary people, gets used to it. They take it as a destiny with the politicians making a mockery of themselves by indulging in childlike blame games. What the BJP is saying today was the usual retort of the Congress when they were out of the treasury benches in parliament. It is a pity that politicians fight for political gains while ordinary people suffer. After every attack, as grisly pictures fill the prime time slots of all the Indian television channels, melancholy grips the heart for the lost lives; someone somewhere must have lost their near and dear ones.
One of Mark Tully’s books is titled: ‘No full stops in India''. Although written in a different context it seems that actually there is no full stop of terror and violence in a country which is known and adored worldwide for love, brotherhood, non violence and peace. Reading about the ghastly blasts and seeing the bloody pictures, I often wonder what is the justification of having such a robust security apparatus if it is brought down to its knees at regular intervals. I was in Delhi recently and had to undergo six layers of security checks within a period of two hours, despite being in the airport lounge all the time. Each time the khaki-clad security men searched my bags and used a metal detector on my body, I was filled with anguish. I heard a disgruntled fellow passenger telling to a security man, what I wanted to communicate. ''You can’t do anything to the terrorists and are unnecessarily harassing us’’, quipped the fellow passenger at the swanky Terminal 3 of the Delhi airport.
Like any other country, the security apparatus in India is also very insensitive and arrogant. Despite all the discomfort and uneasiness of the passengers, the stone faced security men are in no mood to comply with the minimum decorum of civilities. They behave as if they are the masters and we the ordinary people their subjects. In the context of what has happened today at Delhi, the readers might be aghast with my way of seeing things. However, it should be noted that an insensitive attitude on the part of the security apparatus only makes things worse and any ordinary citizen fails to understand the moral necessity of complying with the security arrangements.
Given the intensity of the attacks on India in recent times and the potent of instability and anger worldwide for various reasons, it is a foregone conclusion that terrorism, violence and bloodshed cannot be controlled only by the security mechanism. What is necessary is the ‘people’s surge’ or as celebrated BBC presenter Nik Gowing refers to in a different context as the ‘civilian surge’, where the responsibility of the necessary security level would be bestowed on the people. It would put the people under an ethico-moral obligation to ensure physical security for the society at large. Such a social arrangement would possibly transcend beyond physical security and ensure greater stability within the wider societal space.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)